John Brawley wrote:I think for a TRUE test Jorge we need to see the same frame pointing at the same scene at the same time at the same exposure.

If you own the two cameras, it should be easy for you to do.

I'm not at home or I'd upload some, but I've done plenty of walking around in available light with this camera. You should be getting better than this.

jb

I will do it. What i see is that with prores you get way better results. I have shooted in same settings prores and raw, and the Prores image looks great. In Raw I cant recover so well with a lot of noise as always. This is intriging for me..

JorgeDeSilva wrote: In the BMCC you have to overexpose to feed the sensor, when you are shooting you see the overexposed images in LCD, that sucks! In red it's not the same way, even it's a raw camera too.

I

When shooting RAW, this is when you use the ISO function. Set it to ISO200 and your bright screen won't be so bright.

jb

But that's really BAD in terms of sense! The screen should show the real thing! But yeah... now I get it... After the BAD shoots... lol

Maybe setting the screen to ISO 400 is a better idea when recording RAW.

Yep. or even 200 just like JB told... ! (even without any sense, to a regular camera (even RED!))! Because the camera Zebras comes from the Sensor RAW directly... :/ Prores is better in lowlight... in a not controlled lighting situation as I can see.

The screen can't show the "real thing" if you are shooting RAW as the RAW file contains ISO 200-1600 data. It does not know what ISO you will use in post so it takes the ISO setting in camera as a reference.

adamroberts wrote:The screen can't show the "real thing" if you are shooting RAW as the RAW file contains ISO 200-1600 data. It does not know what ISO you will use in post so it takes the ISO setting in camera as a reference.

I think I know why Prores is better. I remember a discussion at reduser about the monitor always looks good and grainfree at high ISOs and the RAW comes out grainy. It´s because the signal in preview or in prores recording is amplified before recording while RAW is amplified afterwards. Take a DSLR, take a RAW picture at ISO 1600 and then at ISO 800 and push it to 1600. It will be a lot more grainy. DSLRs amplify the signal before taking a picture (even in RAW!) while on the BMCC and RED ISO is just Metadata in RAW.

Felix Steinhardt wrote:I think I know why Prores is better. I remember a discussion at reduser about the monitor always looks good and grainfree at high ISOs and the RAW comes out grainy. It´s because the signal in preview or in prores recording is amplified before recording while RAW is amplified afterwards. Take a DSLR, take a RAW picture at ISO 1600 and then at ISO 800 and push it to 1600. It will be a lot more grainy. DSLRs amplify the signal before taking a picture (even in RAW!) while on the BMCC and RED ISO is just Metadata in RAW.

I know. The thing that anoys me is that at ISO800 the dng that comes out is crap... should be better.If someone wants this camera for events... forget it! Or use prores!

Think of it as it was an audio recording. You set the level too low and it´s not loud enough. You can increase the volume when listening to the recording but it will bei noisy.

If you record with a proper level, meaning with a proper amplification it will be a loud and noise free audio signal.

Same for the BMCC. Prores amplifies the picture "live" and then it gets recorded. In RAW it´s the sensors native ISO and you have to push it in post.

That makes sense... and I definitely get that bringing in more light (feeding the sensor/beefing up the signal) would help exposure and lower noise.

I guess the thing that's confusing though is that if ProRes is picking up this much information, why wouldn't RAW be able to pick up that much and more? Would RAW be getting you a "fuller signal" than ProRes?

Isn't that why with RAW you have 13 stops of DR and with ProRes it's slightly less?

Think of it as it was an audio recording. You set the level too low and it´s not loud enough. You can increase the volume when listening to the recording but it will bei noisy.

If you record with a proper level, meaning with a proper amplification it will be a loud and noise free audio signal.

Same for the BMCC. Prores amplifies the picture "live" and then it gets recorded. In RAW it´s the sensors native ISO and you have to push it in post.

That makes sense... and I definitely get that bringing in more light (feeding the sensor/beefing up the signal) would help exposure and lower noise.

I guess the thing that's confusing though is that if ProRes is picking up this much information, why wouldn't RAW be able to pick up that much and more? Would RAW be getting you a "fuller signal" than ProRes?

Isn't that why with RAW you have 13 stops of DR and with ProRes it's slightly less?

ISO is just metadata, definitely doesn't make a difference what ISO you shoot at as far as noise goes. You could rate the camera at a lower ISO and if you're lighting to a meter at the same rating, achieve proper exposure there and technically you would be "overexposing", that would reduce noise due to the fact that you're feeding the camera more light.

For a completely dark from, two stops under, I would say those files look great. Adam. I'm sure you could get close to the FS100's in camera Noise Reduction with Neat Video on the RAW material.

Edit: And boy I really cannot wait to get some SLR 0.95's on the camera. Voigts will have to do at first.

Kohli I agree. I was very happy with the results. At over 2 stops under I was expecting it to be worse. NeatVideo or even the Resolve noise reduction would be a huge help. I could not run Resolves noise reduction as I was on a MacBook Pro with an ATI card.

I think the NEX5 shots in the first samples in this thread were not at the same settings. Probably a different shutter speed of on Auto ISO.

adamroberts wrote:Kohli I agree. I was very happy with the results. At over 2 stops under I was expecting it to be worse. NeatVideo or even the Resolve noise reduction would be a huge help. I could not run Resolves noise reduction as I was on a MacBook Pro with an ATI card.

I think the NEX5 shots in the first samples in this thread were not at the same settings. Probably a different shutter speed of on Auto ISO.

I have to repeat agin the settings of the nex??? Full Manual! ISO 1600, Shutter 1/50 aperture at f/3.5! How is so difficult to believe that in real lowlight bmc is not the camera???

Dont forget you have lighting on the face...! Try to do the same with again NO lighting! My test is a NO LIGHTING test...

I have bought yesterday the Neat Video Pro plugin. Is making a HUGE difference. Let's wait for Paris... And Again... To use this camera in events, night shows, etc... Again... Prores is the Deal...

Yeah it looked like CFL, surprisingly easy to rip the green out, though. Could've gone further with it.

Agreed, Adam, for two stops underexposed that's darn good. It also reminds me that the FS100 is quite a powerful little lowlight tool, though. Retaining a fair amount of detail with a low noise floor like that, 8-bit or not, is great.

=P Too bad the color can't hold up, however.

adamroberts wrote:

JorgeDeSilva wrote:I have to repeat agin the settings of the nex??? Full Manual! ISO 1600, Shutter 1/50 aperture at f/3.5! How is so difficult to believe that in real lowlight bmc is not the camera???

I'm not arguing with you. It's just strange the your NEX footage looks 2 stops brighter than your BMCC footage yet that is not the case with my test footage.

Indeed, the 1600's match here in your tests, pretty much what I would expect.

To give you an idea, this is an export from Resolve as DPX, then Neat Video with default settings applied in Premiere, output straight into JPG. The profile generated in Neat Video was 79% which is generally considered a 'good' profile. I put the DNG into BMDFilm in resolve and pushed it 2 stops (2.0 plus some minor adjustments):

Christian Schmeer wrote:Another thing: Every once in a while (very rarely though), there is a single frame, which will have some bright dots in it. What could this be? I've noticed this in John Brawley's and Philip Bloom's footage as well, but I can't remember in which videos. I am guessing since it only ever happens to one single frame, it's firmware fixable.

I've seen the same in a dozen recording of a 3h stage show.On TWO Blackmagic Pocket cameras.Very prominent in dark scenes. less prominent but visible in brighter scenes, nearly invisible in bright scenes but still present.Pettern is perfectly fixed over 3h and dozens of batteries.(Of cause each camera has it's own pattern)

Strangely I tried to reproduce it on one of these cameras later and I can't (up to now)